Retweet the hater’s tweet, appending the phrase “I love your passion,” or some variation. This may seem counterintuitive. After all, the hater has just insulted you and you respond with a compliment. But “I love your passion” is no compliment at all. It’s what you hear from someone who is about to disappoint you. It’s what you hear when you don’t get the job.

For example, if you have just proposed that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation fund your museum tour and folk concert to raise awareness about the negative portrayal of Eskimos in the Canadian media, you will likely find the phrase baked into a polite rejection. “It is so refreshing to hear someone talk with your energy about the plight of Greenland’s Yupik population. We all love your passion. But right now the foundation is focused on more tangible projects that are closer to home.”

In a perfectly Orwellian dissenting opinion, which she read dramatically from the bench, Justice Sotomayor argued that the decision of the people of Michigan to end racial discrimination is itself an instance of racial discrimination and that the only way to mitigate such racial discrimination is through the mandatory maintenance of racial discrimination. In this opinion she was joined by Justice Ginsburg, with Justice Kagan recusing herself from the case. Justice Sotomayor argued that Michigan’s Proposal 2, which mandates race-neutral state policies, is the sort of legislation used to “oppress minority groups.” By outlawing racial discrimination, she argued, “a majority of the Michigan electorate changed the basic rules of the political process in that State in a manner that uniquely disadvantaged racial minorities.”

Justice Sotomayor is here arguing in effect that if a constitutional referendum doesn’t go the NAACP’s way, then its effects are invalid. This is not an exaggeration: Justice Soyomayor argues explicitly that Michigan’s voters would have been within their rights to, for example, lobby university authorities to adopt race-neutral admissions standards but that by adopting a constitutional amendment insisting on race neutrality, thereby transferring the decision from the education bureaucrats to the people themselves and their constitution, they “changed the rules in the middle of the game.” Her opinion is legally illiterate and logically indefensible, and the still-young career of this self-described “wise Latina” on the Supreme Court already offers a case study in the moral and legal corrosion that inevitably results from elevating ethnic-identity politics over the law. Justice Sotomayor has revealed herself as a naked and bare-knuckled political activist with barely even a pretense of attending to the law, and the years she has left to subvert the law will be a generation-long reminder of the violence the Obama administration has done to our constitutional order.

Such endeavors are naturally fluffy and positive, but you learn almost nothing about her judicial or political philosophies. By contrast, almost the entire first page of John Roberts’ NYT profile, while nominally positive, is devoted to ferreting out just how politically conservative he actually is. The writer does not offer lyrical illustrations of Roberts’ fair mind and goodness in action, but rather testimonies from friends that sound as if they came in response to the question, “So, all his friends are white Republicans, right?”

Samuel Alito’s profile is similarly devoted to assurances from liberal friends that he’s not insane (whew!), and discussion of whether he is now or ever has been a part of the Reagan Revolution. I guess Roberts and Alito can’t expect the same treatment as Sotomayor. Did they set their “milestones in work and life to the rhythms of the city?” I think not.

What’s most aggravating about the profile, however, is the implicit and common liberal conceit that compelling narratives, racial harmony, and helping others are solely the province of liberals, and particularly liberals in the Age of Obama.

If one has the patience to dig through 40 pages of NYT search results about Justice Clarence Thomas’ “anger” and Anita Hill’s accusations against him, one can find two or three sentences about a man who had no indoor plumbing for much of his childhood, lived in a neighborhood called “Blood Bucket” in the Jim Crow South, and was raised by an illiterate grandfather to work hard and overcome segregation to attend Yale Law and become a Supreme Court justice. Not bad, as narratives go. “Only in America” stories of overcoming obstacles to reach improbable heights did not begin with Barack Obama.

The custom of judges advising and mentoring clerks did not begin with Sonia Sotomayor. Christmas parties featuring both lawyers and janitors do not only happen in the nation’s enlightened urban centers.

I was disappointed when I went to Disneyland and the Great Moments with President Lincoln, and at the end they have photos of great Americans, and they had Sotomaryor’s photo soon after she joined the Supreme Court. They did not recognize other justices in this way. It was almost like giving someone who never accomplished anything a Nobel Peace Prize. It was the last time I went to Disneyland.

Her opinion is legally illiterate and logically indefensible, and the still-young career of this self-described “wise Latina” on the Supreme Court already offers a case study in the moral and legal corrosion that inevitably results from elevating ethnic-identity politics over the law.

It’s “logically indefensible,” but I don’t know if it’s legally illiterate. Haven’t they already decided that “disparate impact” is proof of racism? That if blacks do more poorly on standardized tests than whites, the tests themselves are by definition racist? Her thinking seems to be making for that mire.

Not that I disagree with the rest of it:

Her opinion is legally illiterate and logically indefensible, and the still-young career of this self-described “wise Latina” on the Supreme Court already offers a case study in the moral and legal corrosion that inevitably results from elevating ethnic-identity politics over the law. Justice Sotomayor has revealed herself as a naked and bare-knuckled political activist with barely even a pretense of attending to the law, and the years she has left to subvert the law will be a generation-long reminder of the violence the Obama administration has done to our constitutional order.

Sotomayor does not belong on the Supreme Court. She does not belong on any court. She wrote a 58 page hate fill screed denouncing the people of Michigan as hideous racists. And why? Because they aren’t in favor of racism. To her being against racism is racist. The woman is not a “wise latina”, she is a moronic loon.

Contrary to all other appearances, Justice Sotomayor is obviously a lightweight on the bench and, if not long before, her “wise Latina” remark certainly reached it’s use by expiration date sometime before she composed this dissent.

Please, oh please shed your light and knowledge, once again, on our country’s children, for they are being indoctrinated to abuse and misuse of You. Please help us help them. In Christ I pray.

Dear American Children,

Please know, not every person in power (or not) seeks to minimalize your individual freedom (liberties) or even to strip then entirely. But, as is evident by this video, some powerful people strive to do just that.

Do NOT allow it. You were born, reside and are a citizen of the MOST FREE Nation on Planet Earth. Never forget that, or let that slip away from you in the guise of “UN” Powers. The United Nations is NOT your friend. Look up the history of it and decide for yourselves.

I pray you make the right observations about this Nation of ours. I won’t be long here, myself; but I have a son who may; I wish the same for him.

In order to ‘live free’ and ‘prosper’ in this society you need to elect the types of people who will allow you to do so. In order to do that, look beyond a “d” or “r” or “i” after any candidate for office. Find out what they’re for — and if you’re not clear, go to them and demand they answer to you. THAT is the beginning of the ‘American Dream.’

As I’ve said, I haven’t long in this world, I’m good with that. My hope is that you, YOU will make this country, once again, the ‘Shining Beacon’ it once was, to miilions who arrived on our shores legally, who assimilated to our culture, and were glad to do so. Those folks are your great-great-grand parents, your great-grand parents or grand-parents in many cases.

I wiah you not to disappoint any of them. If you wish to live free, you will elect the politicians who allow you to do so. If you elect politicians who promise you “free” things, you will never live free–freedom is never free–the price of it comes due some day. That day, your children will need to pay–for all that the one party promised to you on your children and grand-childrens’ future earnings. Decide wisely.

I can understand being in a position that is way over your head……geez I have been there. What is a fatal flaw is not recognizing that you are in over your head. I read all 58 pages and I don’t know how to say it nice, so I will refrain. I will ask though, did she write it by herself and did she use crayons?

I can understand being in a position that is way over your head……geez I have been there. What is a fatal flaw is not recognizing that you are in over your head. I read all 58 pages and I don’t know how to say it nice, so I will refrain. I will ask though, did she write it by herself and did she use crayons?

HonestLib on April 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM

…lol!…and you wonder why we like you!
.
.
.
…the cats must be getting fed late tonight…what do you think the QOTD will be?

“I figure I may not be the smartest judge on the court but I’m going to be a competent justice,” she said. “I’m going to try to be the best I can and each year I think my opinions have been getting better. And I’m working at finding my voice a little bit.”

Sotomayer is called the “First Hispanic Supreme Court Justice”. Justice Cordozo was of Iberian decent, making him ‘Hispanic’ in every definition of the word. Portugal sits on the Iberian Peninsula right next to Spain.

Well here goes.
In the ‘military business’ there is a saying that if you cannot explain your plans (or needs) simply and CLEARLY in a few pages then you don’t understand your problem and certainly have no clue how to solve it.
For the ‘Wise Latina’ to take nearly 60 pages to put forth her dissention in the Michigan Affirmative Action case then she is just grandstanding. And again she obviously doesn’t understand the issue … at all. Nor how the CONSTITUTION ignores Affirmative Action and thereby may not be used as a TOOL to fabricate Affirmative Action actions on behalf of selected members of society. E Plurbis Unum my azz.

The Wise Latina’s tantrum is proof that affirmative action produces inferior results. She is so out of her depth even among the other liberal judges that even they were embarrassed and distanced themselves from her ignorant screed. I like the direction MI has taken with this R governor. Maybe with the downfall of Detroit, we finally have a chance of being heard out here in the provinces.

The media love her passion for tyranny. Her 58 page dissent is a manifesto for forced reverse discrimination. The Supreme Court got this one completely right. The will of the people expressed at the ballot box is the foundation of the democratic process.